Jet II
30th Aug 2002, 17:16
From reading postings on other forums it seems that the highest paid flight crew are generally on the long haul routes - I got to wondering exactly why?
As I seem to recall, the most dangerous sectors of a flight are the landing and take-off - As short-haul crews do many more of these and consequently are working harder and exposed to more danger during their work day surely they should be paid the most money.
I have also noted during my times on the flight deck that the smaller a/c are much more 'lively' and need to be flown with more care (777 feels like going down in lift , it is so smooth – compared to the ATR’s and RJ’s) during the landings - so another reason why s/h crews should be paid more?.
I did think that maybe it was because the l/h crew were responsible for more PAX, but if you compare say a 777 with 300 on a trip to LGW from IAH and an A320 crew doing 3 sectors in Europe, they both are responsible for the same amount of PAX at the end of the day. Also at the end of the day the s/h crew will have to battle with the M25 to get home and do it all over again tomorrow whilst the l/h crew sit around the pool in 5 star hotel for a couple of days.
The only reason that I could come up with for the l/h crew to paid more was that they were probably the most senior and had first choice of the l/h routes and so wanted the easier life - take off, wind the seat back and get some sleep while the younger, lower seniority crews work that much harder on the s/h routes dreaming of the day when its their 'turn' on l/h.
Is this a 'fair' representation of the industry?
Before some of the more belligerent members of PPRUNE get their knickers in a twist - this is not an attack on flight crew pay. Just some musings on how it is distributed.
:)
As I seem to recall, the most dangerous sectors of a flight are the landing and take-off - As short-haul crews do many more of these and consequently are working harder and exposed to more danger during their work day surely they should be paid the most money.
I have also noted during my times on the flight deck that the smaller a/c are much more 'lively' and need to be flown with more care (777 feels like going down in lift , it is so smooth – compared to the ATR’s and RJ’s) during the landings - so another reason why s/h crews should be paid more?.
I did think that maybe it was because the l/h crew were responsible for more PAX, but if you compare say a 777 with 300 on a trip to LGW from IAH and an A320 crew doing 3 sectors in Europe, they both are responsible for the same amount of PAX at the end of the day. Also at the end of the day the s/h crew will have to battle with the M25 to get home and do it all over again tomorrow whilst the l/h crew sit around the pool in 5 star hotel for a couple of days.
The only reason that I could come up with for the l/h crew to paid more was that they were probably the most senior and had first choice of the l/h routes and so wanted the easier life - take off, wind the seat back and get some sleep while the younger, lower seniority crews work that much harder on the s/h routes dreaming of the day when its their 'turn' on l/h.
Is this a 'fair' representation of the industry?
Before some of the more belligerent members of PPRUNE get their knickers in a twist - this is not an attack on flight crew pay. Just some musings on how it is distributed.
:)